SCOTUS conservatives strike at heart of Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the nation’s most important civil rights laws, requires states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing how they conduct elections. That part of the law is still intact, but on Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the coverage map is based on outdated data. NBC’s Pete Williams reports.

When Police Knock on Your Door

Court Upholds Gay Marriage Bans in Four States

What You Need to Know About the Battle Over Voting Laws

High Court Upholds Texas' Voter ID Law

Nightly News
October 18, 2014

When Police Don't Know the Law

NBCNews.com
October 04, 2014

This content comes from Closed Captioning that was broadcast along with this program.

>>>good evening. as one reporter put it today, the
u.s. supreme court
has driven a stake through the heart of the most important
civil rights law
ever enacted, the
voting rights act
. it was created because of a history of discrimination in certain states. today the
court
said our country has changed since then. the
court
was divided over it, and while it doesn't end
voting rights
enforcement in this country. it fired up opponents from the president to the attorney general, the
civil rights
groups. it does allow congress to bring it back if there's the political will. it's where we begin tonight with our justice correspondent
pete williams
at the
court
. pete, good evening.

>>brian, good evening. the
court
's conservatives followed through on a threat they made four years ago to strike at the heart of the
voting rights act
unless congress updated it, congress did nothing, and today the
court
left the key part of the law all but dead. the ruling deals a crippling and potentially fatal blow to the law signed by johnson in
1965
, a response to widespread efforts in the south to prevent blacks from voting.

>>we're marching today to drum ties to the nation.

>> reporter: john lewis
watched as the law was signed.

>>without the
voting rights act
of
1965
, there would be no
barack obama
as
president of the united states of america
. we've come too far, made too much progress to go back.

>>this decision represents a serious set back for
voting rights
and has the potential to negatively affect millions of
americans
across the country.

>> reporter: in a 5-4 ruling, the
court
's conservatives said the areas covered by the
voting rights act
have changed but the law has not kept up. the law requires states with a history of voter discrimination to get permission from the
federal government
before changing how they conduct elections. the
court
left that in tact. but it struck down the map of where that requirement applies, that's all of nine mostly
southern states
and parts of six others.
john roberts
said the map is based on decades old data and eradicated practices. in five of the covered
southern states
, african-
americans
have a higher
voter turnout
than white. opponents of the law who helped shelbey county, alabama challenge it, hailed the ruling.

>>we just elected a
black president
of the shelbey
county board
of education over a white incumbent.

>>african-
americans
are an
integral part
of southern
political life
. and that's a good thing, and that's never going to change.

>> reporter: but writing for the
court
's centers, justice ginsberg said gutting the law is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.
civil rights
groups vowed to rally the same kind of action against congress they got 40 years ago.

>>the only way congress will act is if we call, we march, we make clear we do not intend to go backwards on voting.

>>>one state, texas responded immediately, said it would start enforcing one of the nation's strictest voter i.d. laws and it may redraw its congressional and legislative districts now that it's no longer covered by a key part of the voter rights act. the term ends with the final decisions, including on those two blockbuster cases on same sex marriage.